View Single Post
Old 26th November 2012, 19:19   #9
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
winamp seems to write values using the 0,20,40,60,80,100 scale, which i think is basically the de facto standard. but i am sure some apps out there other than winamp write a scale of 0-5 or 0-10, so winamp reading them this way makes sense.
all i remember is 0-100 was picked as the writing range based on what came up in whichever forum thread detailed things or what was found from elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
the only problem is lack of granularity if winamp ever choose to do half stars, and even then, the problem would only arise for values between 0-10, but something to be kept in mind.
thinking ahead is good and with how everything else seems to re-map things, if it was to happen (which i think is about as likely as me going to the moon), the scalings being used would allow it to happen without too much pain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
what happens if the value is 11-19? i assume that still shows as one star, yes?
in this case it is still treated as no stars and will only show a star when it's on or above 0,20,40,60,80,100.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
this sounds like it might explain, and have fixed, a bug with ratings i previously reported. i'm a bit vague on the exact details, but it was something like this: if you have a file, rate it (via the top center file info pane), and then move it, then play it again from windows explorer, the rating would not show in that same pane.
it might help with that if the moved instance still isn't in the library. there is still a case where externally changing the metadata won't be noticed until Winamp is re-started or you play a different file of the same type, i.e. you play a different file due to how the input plug-ins try to cache things based on the last filename.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
i think attempting to pull ratings from files first, then the ML, might fix this issue, and more importantly, is the smart way to do it anyway, as the user wants to see the reality of the data in the files, not the more transient nature of whats in the DB.
fair point but i'm not going to alter that behaviour as it then just nullifies the point of ratings being in the library - it's done that way so it's quicker than parsing out of the actual file. yes if you rate things externally then it'll get funky but this is why doing it via one consistent method needs to be done - trying to code something to cover anything and everything imposes increased disk activity when it's not needed and has the potential to slow Winamp down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
this also exposed what might be another bug: i have winamp set to NOT add files to ML when played, however, simply rating a file being played seems to over-ride this setting. so thats why the rating would not display once the file was moved, b/c it was no longer where the ML thought it was, and the rating was being pulled from ML first.
it's always done that in it'll add the rating to the library whenever the library is available since that is where the API calls made by parts of Winamp go first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
i just wanted to clarify why i don't favor this system... the basic issue is that 1-29 ends up being 1 star or various degrees of one star, and so 90-100 or 91-100 ends up being all the granularity you get at the top of the scale. its just not nearly as clean or intuitive, and its wasteful, as who needs 29 points of granularity for one star type material?
eh? 0,20,40,60,80,100 is the ranges so there's only 20 degrees between them, not 29 (not sure how you've gotten that). though this does re-inforce my view that ratings are evil and too subject (since no one can agree on how they're meant to be consistently handled, and yes Winamp hasn't helped with a 5* range).

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote